Every problem on earth can be solved by the liberal application of ordnance

"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life."

Can the quantum sciences, like quantum physics be considered a "soft sciences" because of their probabilistic and uncertainty?

Scientific is what objective. Probalistic models are objective and have practical usage.
Quantum physics can't be excluded from the science because has probabilistic models.

The more problem with quantum physics is that observer influences on the results. As this mb thought as not objective experiment and hence the conclusions based on such experiments.
I suspect, that at least some of _principally_ probabilistic models of QF mb turned to predifined laws with the addition of new dimensions. The reality may to have several variants of timelines which are predifined, while an observer (or his consciousness' perception) may shift between them.

Can the quantum sciences, like quantum physics be considered a "soft sciences" because of their probabilistic and uncertainty?

No, this is a misconception. The methodology used to study quantum physics is the same as any other hard science or area of physics: a mixture of math, intuition, and empirical observation. The formalism of quantum mechanics is rigorously defined, unlike the soft sciences which tend to rely more on fuzzy concepts that are harder to put into formal language.

The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open. I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle that represents reality - it is clear what each piece represents, but there is no real way the pieces fit together. I think a comparsion could be made to some types of psychology, where the idea is simply to "shut up and compute" (e.g., statistical correlations) without considering the underlying theory. However, it is supposed to be a hard science, and therefore highly accurate in some respects (unlike the soft sciences)...

(By the way, I find the "real thing" incredibly hard to study. The level of mathematical aptitude, combined with the lack of underlying theory makes it really hard to understand... With the right books, something like special relativity is actually miles easier to grasp...)

The probabilistic predictions of quantum theory are conventionally obtained from a special probabilistic axiom. But that is unnecessary because all the practical consequences of such predictions follow from the remaining, non-probabilistic, axioms of quantum theory, together with the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory.

(52:14) A belief in probability in quantum theory may not prevent you from developing quantum computers, quantum algorithms in practice. But because probability and the Born rule entail fundamental misconceptions about the physical world, they could very well prevent you from developing the successors of quantum theory. And in particular, Constructor theory is the framework in which I suspect successors to quantum theory will be developed. As I said, Constructor theory is incompatible with physical probabilities.

Originally Posted by jason_m

The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open. I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle that represents reality - it is clear what each piece represents, but there is no real way (as of now) the pieces fit together. I think a comparsion could be made to some types of psychology, where the idea is simply to "shut up and compute" (e.g., statistical correlations) without considering the underlying theory. However, it is supposed to be a hard science, and therefore highly accurate in some respects (unlike the soft sciences)...

Arguably, the asking and answering to the question of "why" is what leads to new discoveries and more progress. But because the "shut up and calculate" approach has prevented people from asking the question of "why", physics has stagnated for decades without any real progress since quantum physics. It's simply awaiting a new successor theory that will resolve the contradiction between Einsteinian physics and quantum physics, which are in direct conflict with each other.

Although the two studies pull out the Born rule from different origins, the results are not necessarily inconsistent, Cabello said: “We simply have different obsessions.” Masanes and colleagues are looking for the simplest set of axioms for constructing the operational procedures of quantum mechanics — and they find that, if measurement as we know it is possible at all, then the Born rule doesn’t need to be added in separately. There’s no specification of what kind of underlying physical reality gives rise to these axioms. But that underlying reality is exactly where Cabello starts from. “In my opinion, the really important task is figuring out which are the physical ingredients common to any universe in which quantum theory holds,” he said. And if he’s right, those ingredients lack any deep laws.

Evidently that remains to be seen: Neither of these papers will settle the matter. But what both studies have in common is that they aim to show how at least some of the recondite, highly mathematical and apparently rather arbitrary quantum formalism can be replaced with simple postulates about what the world is like. Instead of saying that “probabilities of measurement outcomes are equal to the modulus squared of the wave function,” or that “observables correspond to eigenvalues of Hermitian operators,” it’s enough to say that “measurements are unique” or that “no fundamental law governs outcomes.” It might not make quantum mechanics seem any less strange to us, but it could give us a better chance of understanding it.

The problem is that there is no underpinning theory to quantum mechanics. It is a hodge-podge of empirical formulas that work extremely well, but the "why" behind the formulas is left wide-open. I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle that represents reality - it is clear what each piece represents, but there is no real way the pieces fit together. I think a comparsion could be made to some types of psychology, where the idea is simply to "shut up and compute" (e.g., statistical correlations) without considering the underlying theory. However, it is supposed to be a hard science, and therefore highly accurate in some respects (unlike the soft sciences)...

(By the way, I find the "real thing" incredibly hard to study. The level of mathematical aptitude, combined with the lack of underlying theory makes it really hard to understand... With the right books, something like special relativity is actually miles easier to grasp...)

Like thehotelambush said, there is a structure to the theory. The complaint you have is something that is inherently unresolvable in science. Science can't answer the question of "why". It can only answer questions of "how", essentially providing descriptions of how the universe works rather than explaining the underlying reasons for what has lead those descriptions to be the ones we observe. Every time we answer a "why" question, we create a new set of structures that go lower down the abstraction ladder. For example, if we want to know why an object moves, we create the idea of a force. We can then develop the field of classical mechanics. This field allows for precise descriptions and predictions of how classical objects will move when subjected to ideas we have created like force and energy. We chose these ideas because they can be properly formulated using mathematics and have nice properties; for example, energy is conserved in a closed system. However, if we want to ask the question of why applying a force to an object causes it to move, then we have to do deeper. It turns out, that there is an electromagnetic and quantum mechanical reason for this occurrence. Again, at this level of abstraction, we define terms that are useful to make more predictions. We are now at the point where we're asking why quantum mechanics works. This leads to ideas like quantum field theory, which, in turn, is trying to be described by string theory. If string theory were to not be false by all of our experiments, then we'd be at the road block again. Why are strings the fundamental structure? Who knows? If we want to know that, then we'd probably have to create new structures and ideas to go down another layer of abstraction to explain strings. To explain that structure, we'd have to create another structure. And so on and so forth. I'm not sure if this is the correct usage of the saying but it's turtles all the way down. It's not possible to explain why science works using science itself. That's why people turn to religion or spirituality (and other reasons, obviously). The questions of why are best left to priests and philosophers who have the capacity to view science from the outside-in. It's not like we can prove those right or wrong, so take your pick.

In science, you can understand the why, but you have to be more clever than the usual approach.

E.g., a simple equation:

F = G*m1*m2/r^2

But why?

1. F = G*m1*m2/r^2.
2. Therefore, F ∝ m1*m2/r^2.
3. As m1 gets larger, its pull gets stronger. When it is smaller, its pull gets weaker. An example would be the Earth and the moon, or the Earth and our bodies. Therefore, F ∝ m1.
4. The same for m2. Therefore, F ∝ m2.
5. As r gets smaller, it's force gets stronger, using the same example as with the Earth. Therefore, F ∝ 1/r. Equivalently, F ∝ 1/r^2.
6. Putting this together, we get F ∝ m1*m2/r^2.
7. That means that F = k*m1*m2/r^2.
8. But we knew that k = G!
9. Therefore, F = G*m1*m2/r^2.

(Note: if you're not familiar, a ∝ b means that a = kb - i.e., "a is proportional to b")

You see, with a little bit of thinking, this can be explained almost entirely by analysis. Now try doing this with quantum mechanics, where we don't know the 'why' and with double, triple integrals, etc. I find that impossible!

(EDIT: If you don't trust my approach, see "Chemistry A Molecular Approach Canadian Edition" p. 156 - 'The Ideal Gas Law.' Their demonstration of the Ideal Gas Law is exactly the same as my 'proof.' E.g., here.)

There already is an answer to the question of "why", and that's the "Many-worlds Interpretation". But most physicists don't like that answer, because you can't "see" the multiverse. But then again, neither can you "see" the dinosaurs, but you don't say that the dinosaurs never existed.

So the "collapse" and the "observer effect" and all that is just a way to get around the fact that it has anything to do with the multiverse actually existing.

So the "collapse" and the "observer effect" and all that is just a way to get around the fact that it has anything to do with the multiverse actually existing.

I had read a number of popular books on quantum mechanics - many dealt with this issue... My guess was that in the process of observing, the observer becomes entangled with Schrodinger's Wave Equation, and it becomes much much more complicated to follow the equation's evolution - i.e., the observer is now 'part of the measurement.' Therefore, as a stop-gap answer, it simply 'collapses'... But who knows? I haven't studied the real thing, so I could be wrong...

I have a feeling that functional correlations could be found between quantum "nonlocality" and manifestations in the cosmos through the kabbalistic tree of life model. But it might be another branch of science to be uncovered to discern the underpinnings of a reliable network of consciousness "why's" between the two paradigms. For example, when does beauty manifest as the actualized energy potential between mercy and law?

For those who don't know math, I will pick the simplest example possible to show the difference between the 'why' and the 'how' approach in science. Let's look at how each approaches the notion that 1/2 is greater than 1/3.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

(I learned the first exact method with the strips by reading about how they teach math in China. I found it so interesting that I wanted to share it with you. Maybe this illustrates the difference between the way they teach math in Asia vs. North America, but I still found it applicable to this debate...)

Quantum physics is used because it fits better than everything else. Classical mechanics breaks down at a certain point, and so a different form of mechanics thus needs be used for greater accuracy. That was calculated from experimental data to form the field quantum mechanics. For example, special relativity breaks newtonian mechanics instantly by slapping a maximum conventional speed on the entire everything. Newtonian mechanics assumes speed is linear, IE infinite thrust >> infinite speed. Special Relativity states that if light has no mass, then it goes the maximum, because it has no inertia. Or something. I hope that's right.

If I stop responding or posting, I've probably taken a break from posting stuff. This really taxes me for whatever reason. Said break could last anywhere from a month to a year. I will likely be back, as socionics is one of my interests. If I'm not on here, you can contact me on steam.